REA Bargaining Session Update: March 05, 2020

REA/RSD 2020 Negotiations 

Minutes

• Introductions
• Ground rules agreed on
• Proposal exchange
• Articles to be discussed at next session

• M. Bruce Nasser-Marsh, REA Member & Chair
• Joyce Rosenau, 2nd Chair
• Molly Frye, Member
• Jason Larson, Member
• Brian Jay, Member
• Eve Thompson, Alternate
• Catherine Alexander, Uniserv Consultant

• Brian Hungerford, Attorney, Hungerford Law Firm
• Dr. Danna Diaz, Superintendent 
• Dr. Nicole MacTavish, Chief Academic Officer
• Lisa McDonald, Principal
• Adam Swientek, Interim Principal
• Gerardo Ibarra Elola, Assistant Principal
• Valerie Tewksbury, Reynolds School Board Vice Chair
• Rob Neu, Co- Interim Director Human Capital Management

• E – The language has been changed to what the Association proposed.
• F – New Unit Member Information – The Association asked to change language to reflect whoever sends out the information as it may not be the Superintendent. The last sentence, which is the Association’s language, was added.
• G – Departmental name change
• H – Left as originally proposed
• K3 – Clarifying the 25 days is for the Association entity, not necessarily each person. With HB2016, designated reps have a lot more flexibility and ability to use paid time.

• A – Language was changed to match the state and is similar to the Association’s wording. The District state ELD is not included as the Student Services department feels it should be separate from Special Education language. The Association stated that they offered the language because combining both Special Education and ELD would match the alignment under the Executive Director of Student and Family Services.
• B – Unchanged
• C1 – The Special Education department considers the concept of “self-contained” an antiquated idea. The term “specialized” means the program has fluidity. There’s an intermixing of students and students have opportunities to mainstream. The District proposes to delete the language regarding the committee.
• C2 – The Special Education department, based on an equity lens, doesn’t want to call out a specific student population. They don’t want it viewed as inequitable or discriminatory and don’t want students to be labeled.
• D1 – The District considers placement to be a subset of IEP meetings.
• D2 – Expand so it’s more inclusive.
• D3 – The District wants to be clear about what type of plans and clarifying they are related to students receiving Special Education services specifically. Behavior issues is a broad term. Both students receiving Special Education services and those that don’t, have behavior concerns. The District adopted the timeline the Association proposed.
• E – The District sees it as part of the overall economic package. They’re not necessarily opposed to it on face value but in the context of the overall proposal.
• E1 - Change who the form is submitted to.
• E2 – Change to entering time in TimeClock Plus.
• F – The District would like to keep ELD separate from this article. They are looking at having other mechanisms to gather input from all stakeholders. The PCG EL report recommends creating an ELD committee and the District plans to follow those recommendations. Under SIA, the District is required to get stakeholder input including REA, OSEA, parents, and administrators and to evaluate the effectiveness. REA feels the District has been inept at planning meetings; they schedule meetings at the last minute, they cancel when meetings have been scheduled for months, they hand-pick members, and they’re not impressed with the surveys. They want a way for teachers who work with the students every day to have a way to bring to that knowledge to the District. REA asked the District how many languages were the ELD survey was provided in. Focus groups were held for Russian, Spanish, and indigenous speaking parents. The same questions were asked of each group. How many parents were surveyed? That information is in the Appendices which was sent to the ELD Committee. It’s also on Board Book. Is there a written plan for replacing the committees? The ELD department is working on the framework for the new ELD committee and the Superintendent is committed to getting input from all the stakeholders. The Urban Collaborative is assessing the Special Education program. They’re just finishing up the surveys and are collecting and looking at qualitative data. The committee is currently made up of only two parties: REA and the District want broader input. Current language says the members can solicit input from parents, student groups and others that may be impacted. The District sees the solicitation of input being different from people actually serving on a committee or being a fully functional member. Since the new committees would involve other groups, the District doesn’t feel it should be in the REA negotiated agreement. When will written plans be ready for the committees? The Superintendent will consult with the school board.

• A – Agree to any MOUs to be posted electronically instead of in printed in hard copy.
• G – Add language to check email on contractual days.
• H – Title change - should be school reform and agree to replace ESSA reference.

• D – Change OAR to correct number instead of striking it. REA clarified this change from past bargaining. It was due to a concern and was put in to protect what teachers do so the District can’t subcontract. The District thinks the Recognition clause protects from subcontracting along with the job description. The Association is concerned it will come up again when talking about alternative licensure.
• E – The Association asked if the District is adding non-extension and the District said no, they felt it was embedded.
• H3b – Is currently underlined and should also be bold. Association agrees.
• H4 – Want to formalize the process so there isn’t any misunderstanding. That is why the District wants a written notice of deficiency but doesn’t want to over-formalize a step in the process. The Association wants something that heightens the awareness and gives members a path to remedy the deficiencies but also includes collaboration.
• H5Ai – Leave language as is.
• H5cii – Accepted strike
• I1 – Accepted addition
• J1 – Don’t accept J1 – added #4 – any complaint must be in compliance with state law. Language would allow the District to investigate a complaint even if it comes verbally.
• J3iii – Added wording – currently underlined but needs to be bold.
• L – Accepted strikeout –but has a concern about added language. The District said it wasn’t intended to expand the District’s right beyond the law.
• M - Safety form – agree as long as both sides to agree on what it looks like.

• A – The Association didn’t accept any changes. They’re concerned about the language regarding the Board’s discretion as they don’t want the Board to make that choice unilaterally. How does the Association feel about a longer year? The Association doesn’t like it because they would be working longer without getting paid more. That isn’t the District’s intention. There would be a corresponding increase in pay.
• B2 – Conference Prep Day – the Association doesn’t like the split day like this year; they want one full day to prep for each day they conference.
• C – Getting rid of calendar development committee. The District’s intent was to eliminate the two-tier process and combine it into one effort. The Association agrees to that but still wants to meet.

• A - Title change to Instructional Day. The District feels an instructional day is a student day which is different than a workday so the Association will re-consider that change. REA is opposed to changing the 7.5 hours on Friday. They feel their workday would increase with students by a little over 3 days over the course of the year for no more renumeration. It’s a long-standing tradition since 1972. Some schools take the half hour at the beginning of the day.
• 3 – Approved the language change.
• 5 – New language saying start times should be aligned to the developmental needs of students. The transportation schedule is a huge piece and it’s a complicated issue, but the District thinks it should not be contract language.
• B2 – Continuous language is a repeat in another paragraph – no change.
• B2, paragraph 2 – Teachers are using part of prep to transition students. This would only apply during the student day. Is it doable with the schedule? It depends on the number of students and number of sessions. The language regarding pro-rated prep time is accepted by the Association.
• B2, paragraph 4 - Accepted block schedule with added language to bargain prior to implementation.
• B3 – Accepted
• B4 – Clarified what extra duty means.
• E – Corrected lettering to include D.

• PCG work expenses and schedule of contracts
• Technology audit
• Urban Collaborative expenses
• Joint financial session – April 30th